Posted: May 05, 2019 8:41 am
Fila wrote:I assume most scientists would agree that we are not alone in the universe.
Who is 'we'? If you mean humans, then we are demonstrably not alone in the universe: this planet is teeming with other living things - your digestive tract is teeming with other living things. So what you really want to talk about here is life on other planets, and probably intelligent life on other planets - and probably intelligent life on other planets that has or does visit Earth.
It's always vital in such discussions to work hard to be specific so that the few valid points don't get lost amidst fluff.
Consequent to that is another major problem: science isn't conducted by consensus alone. It doesn't matter if every scientist in the world believes X; they need to show X for it to be science. Any scientist that believes intelligent life on other planets has or does visit Earth isn't actually being a scientist while holding that position, so any authority they may have scientifically doesn't roll over into this statement.
Fila wrote:So why are aliens considered "not normal" within science?
Well, they're not considered 'not normal' - they're considered 'not empirically shown'.
Fila wrote:I understand its not normal for someone to see an alien.., so is that the "paranormal" part?
No, it's partly the lack of access to that observation for everyone else which makes it paranormal.
Fila wrote:If so;
1) What types of evidence is required by first hand witnesses.., in order to prompt a scientific investigation in order to gather sufficient data? (Images, video, written account....)
2) What types of evidence would be required by the scientific investigation to form a conclusion?
(I.e. An observation is made.., but it cannot be replicated on demand.)
And how much will be required to form a conclusion?
3) How would this type of evidence be acquired?
(Magnometer, seismograph, geigercounter, IR, radar, laser range finder, spectral readings etc etc)
1) I can't really answer that question as it depends on the first-hand witness. Presumably, whatever evidence convinces them of the thing they saw. What would prompt a valid scientific investigation is something empirical. Images, videos, and written accounts are reports, not the empirical quantity necessary to do anything. A bunch of even the most admirably efficacious scientists can't sit looking at a picture and then make scientific proclamations from it alone.
2) Not a conclusion, as that's philosophically troubling, but the answer is always the same for all science: empirical evidence. An observation made which cannot be replicated is no basis on which to do science. How much evidence is needed? Enough. Trite, perhaps, but also true.
3) No idea: what tools would be useful would depend entirely on the type of evidence available.
Fila wrote:I'm open to suggestions that credible / reputable UFO witnesses are merely experiencing some mental effect,...
Well, I should hope so given that if they weren't, they'd be brain dead!
Fila wrote:... however I have yet to see any paper forming a solid conclusion on this matter.
Hard to grasp what you mean here. You expect a paper which concludes that things people see are experiences of the mind? Or a paper which says that all reports of alien life-forms visiting Earth are hallucinatory?
It obviously falls foul of the same problem as the original notional scientists agreeing on something they can't test.
Fila wrote: Rather than dismissing the claims.., my intention is to look into them. I feel citizens deserve to be treated with respect.., and at least some kind of investigation should take place out of decency.
Looking into them isn't going to entail anything scientific. Treating people with respect does not mean lending scientific validity to their anecdotes.
Fila wrote:I'm also not interested in discussing previous UFO cases. I believe this is simply one form of early research.., but cannot be used to form conclusions about an entire topic. 80 years of these discussions (assumptions by both "sides") merely keeps the myth alive, with no actual answer. Witness testimony, images and radar returns are not conclusive evidence.., so there's no point in debating them.
Perhaps you've answered your own curiosity? 80 years of speculation hasn't actually offered anything tangible or empirically sound, buy yet the myth persists. This suggests it's unlikely that the speculations are grounded on anything other than the existence of the myth. It's also potentially enlightening that the notion of extra-planetary intelligent life visiting Earth coincides with human technological invention allowing us to conceive of visiting other planets.
Fila wrote:Let's be smarter.., and spend the next 80 years trying to find actual answers.., not reading stories and debating them.., as at best.., a good UFO story will only be that. Unidentified.
This doesn't appear to me to offer anything smarter. It's easy to appeal to being smarter, but maybe harder to actually do it. How do we go about finding 'actual answers'? Are we really sure there are any answers, or even actually any valid questions?
Fila wrote:So at best.., this old way will only yeild inconclusive results at best. AT BEST.
Its an obvious waste of time.
And the new way is what? How does this unstated new way differ from the old?